Does Alexander II deserve his historical reputation?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Does Alexander II deserve his historical reputation? In recent historical perspectives, Alexander II has been described as the Tsar Liberator, the man who freed and 'modernised' Russia. Alexander II succeeded to the throne in 1855, at the height of the Crimean War, a war which clearly portrayed the strong backwardness of Russia in comparison to countries such as England and France. It was due to this that the newly appointed Tsar proposed several new reforms to modernise Russia, to be at the same stage of Western countries. This essay will be focusing on whether Alexander deserves the title of the Tsar Liberator and whether he truly freed Russia. The first move Alexander II made to free Russia was the idea of emancipating the serfs within Russia. In 1861, Alexander issued his Emancipation Manifesto which proposed seventeen various things that would all contribute to freeing the serfs. Serfs were granted a personal freedom of two years, when full freedom would then be granted. Farming serfs were given plots of land in accordance to the size of their family to look after. Landowners got paid compensation in return for giving peasants pieces of land. The serfs would also get wages for working, something which had never occurred in Russia before. Alexander thought giving the serfs freedom would give me a wider range of support. This therefore, supports Alexander's current reputation. He was the 'Tsar Liberator' as he liberated the serfs and gave them their freedom. However, peasants were not actually given full freedom and were bound by several terms of their 'freedom.' ...read more.

Middle

No longer were there different courts for different classes, equality was introduced for all classes. Judges were to be better trained and paid higher wages to prevent bribery and the abuse of power that once occurred. All of these reforms were introduced to make the legal system fair by making the peasantry equal to the nobility. However, although this was what was theoretically meant to happen, the optimistic outcome did not always occur. Bribery still happened, regardless of how well paid the judges became. Judges still accepted money of people who offered it, mainly being the nobility. Therefore, the legal system was still not legitimate. Also, these reforms were not introduced to all provinces in Russia, for example, the legal system was still chaotic in the Caucus region. The military was also changed as a result of Alexander's reforms. Modern weapons were introduced and officers were given proper training. Convicts were no longer drafted into the army, thus strengthening it ass before, convicts jeopardised potential wins for the military. The length of service was also decreased from what was originally a death sentence, and generally lasted longer than life expectancy itself to 15 years active service and 10 year leave in reserve. This reserve was vast and could be mobilised whenever required. Additionally, these military reforms restored Russia's international reputation as well as Alexander's as 'Alexander the Great,' both the country and its Tsar regained their powerful reputation from when they lost it during the Crimean War. ...read more.

Conclusion

Censorship was once again tightened and the number of students allowed to go to university declined. He changed to a rule of repression. However, just after he was assassinated, he was planning to produce another reform, granting the Russian people a constitution. However, this was never passed as he was killed first. Therefore, if Alexander really was the 'Tsar Liberator' he wouldn't have accumulated such opposition from liberal students, and after he realised he had such opposition, he changed his stance. However, just before he was killed, he attempted to pass his final reform, the most liberal one of the lot. However, as he was killed before it was announced to the Russian public, it was never passed within his reign, so he cannot be classed as a liberator as he died before he had chance to be. Therefore, this essay concludes that although Alexander II maintained a generally liberal course throughout his reign, he does not deserve the title 'Alexander the Great' or the 'Tsar Liberator.' This is mainly due to his failures. Although his reforms were meant to liberate Russia, they never went to plan and often backfired, causing a decline in liberalism and an increase in opposition. However, if he had not have been assassinated, it is questionable as to whether he would have deserved the title then. Just before his death, he was proposing one of his most liberal reforms yet and maybe if this had gone though, he truly would have been the Tsar Liberator. However, it is not possible to say he was with the reforms that he passed as they generally lead to the citizens of Russia wanting more. ...read more.

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

Therefore McCauley argues that Stalin "manipulated Marxism and Leninism for his own means"18 as McCauley believes Stalin was not a true communist as he did not properly embrace the ideology. Moreover his focus on "traditional" beliefs such as family values, the importance of marriage, and the implementation of policies such as making divorce difficult and outlawing abortion.

was still and absolute monarch, and therefore still retain a strong grasp on power. A very successful reform that Alexander II implemented was the reform of legal system. Alexander set up trails by jury, open court proceedings and defence by qualified lawyers was introduced.

The peasantry, too was in a state of unusual agitation. Under these pressures Alexander may appear less as a far-sighted reformer than as a dutiful ruler forced to confront challenges of great complexity. Alexander's motives for granting emancipation are questionable.

The success of this reform can be judged on how it was received. Peasant revolts increased; the peasants still had to pay taxes; landowners lost their ?bank mortgages? (the serfs), and the limitations of the reform sparked revolutionary activity. Of course, it cannot be ignored that the peasants were ecstatic at their new found freedom from their masters.

In fact, they themselves talked more freely of it. Indeed, the number of local peasant riots had notably increased since the 1840?s. These peasant riots were used as argument for reform by independent persons like Koshelyov, Samarin, or the historian K.D.

Alexander saw emancipation of the serfs as a method of evolving; serfdom prevented the growth of Russian industry by obstructing free flow of labour and prevented introduction of modern methods of agriculture. Furthermore, Alexander saw from the rising number of peasant revolts that it was wiser to abolish serfdom from a higher power rather than peasants revolting.

This included the introduction of judges that could not be swayed by bribery, juries and courts. For the first time Russians were offered the chance of a fair trial, and a considerable freedom of expression.

This huge length of time meant that many serfs were not actually emancipated for 49 years, as they were still under control of the Lords through the payments. Furthermore the landowners, many of who had already been debt lost wealth, as they lost land, loss ownerships of serfs and the redemption payments were mostly spent paying off old debts.